Do You Believe Human Activity Causes Harmful Climate Change?

[Jingthing]

Credible climate scientists are projecting that because of human caused climate change, Bangkok Thailand will be under water within 50 years.

The vast majority of credible global scientists as well as world leaders accept the mainstream scientific theory that human activity is causing global warming that will lead to many catastrophic effects to our planet if not addressed on time.

Yet so many non-scientists (and right wing politicians such as drop out Alaska governor, Ms. Palin) for some reason think they are smarter than the overwhelming consensus of mainstream science.

Therefore, I am wondering if education level is related to these points of view. Thus, this poll.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Jingthing

[waza]

well Jingthing seems your 100% correct so far lol

[yabaaaa]

OK Jingy youve gone nuts now havent you?? c'mon admit it!!

Is 1. Bangkok sinking or 2. are sea levels rising??? or answer 3. my preferred one its an alien conspiracy???

[yabaaaa]

Wow 5 votes I see , I voted null Im too uneducated to know what the other answers mean.

[noahvail]

I'm rather tempted to put myself down for a null vote. Imho, some human activity causes harmful climate change, other human activity causes helpful climate change. I tend to think that any climate change can be put down to Nature, and as humans, we are in fact part of Nature, not separate from it. Some small examples are major volcanic eruptions whose ash blankets the atmosphere and blocks the sun's rays...this leads to cooling of the earth (can't remember the source, but if requested I'll ask my friend Mr Google). Volcanos tend to gush out copious amounts of ozone-layer killing CFCs - which, I think, for the most part are banned (but don't tell the volcanos).

The lists go on. There is ample evidence of the advances and retreats of the polar ice caps over the ages. We may be playing a part in the earth's warming, but I imagine it's a rather small part.

So, my favourite colour being plaid, I vote yes and no.

edited to add a phrase

Edited December 13, 2009 by noahvail

[Lite Beer]

No way this is Thai Related. Moved to the Pub.

[Jingthing]

I tend to think that any climate change can be put down to Nature, and as humans, we are in fact part of Nature, not separate from it.

The question was about human activity, not whether human activity is natural or not. Of course, we as humans have the natural ability to develop advanced technology like automobiles. That really has nothing to do with the question.

I don't care that this is in the pub, or not, but clearly the issue of climate change is a global issue with localized consequences, and last time I checked Thailand is on this planet. Thailand also has a lot of islands and sea coasts, is part of the great Mekhong river, is currently the greatest exporter of vital rice crops for the world -- all directly related to the global climate change issue. Thailand is a small player compared to China, India, and the USA in causing global climate change, but that doesn't mean it won't be severely impacted by the actions of bigger countries, assuming the mainstream scientists are correct.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Jingthing

[PeaceBlondie]

I voted yes (BA degree in Christianity).

[britmaveric]

No - Yes I have advanced degrees. Plain and simple - climate changes are natural cycle of earth. Does this mean you can't protect the environment, of course not, but proponents of global warming think it's clearly fact when same people were stating we were entering an ice age decade prior.

Edited December 13, 2009 by britmaveric

[Jingthing]

So we have some climate related scientists voting here. Speak up please, if you are for real!

Edited December 13, 2009 by Jingthing

[britmaveric]

Global Warming = big business for its advocates (heaps of dosh to be earned)

[teatree]

AGW = TAX and CONTROL

Thankfully more and more people are starting to see this.

Edited December 13, 2009 by teatree

[Jingthing]

AGW = TAX and CONTROL

Thankfully more and more people are staring to see this.

Think logically, my man. It could be that and ALSO real!

[teatree]

AGW = TAX and CONTROL

Thankfully more and more people are staring to see this.

Think logically, my man. It could be that and ALSO real!

But it isn't real. What is happening now has happened countless times in the past. Entirely natural.

The IPCC didn't even take the Sun into account in any of its models. Am I the only one to find that incredulous? The Sun is the very source of 95%plus of heat on Earth, yet the IPCC didn't consider it necessary to include it. How can you possibly give these 'scientists' any credit?

[xerostar]

If it was my job being in charge of Thailand's resources, I'd be having some serious discussions with my colleagues in Holland.

Human activity or not, there is no doubt that the sky is falling and any doubters will soon be wading to work. (or rowing)

I was interested in the concept of providing a sun shade of mega proportions in space but the naysayers said that would be impossible.

If it gets too hot just close the blinds for a while - simple!

So I guess we're doomed.

Another good reason to get to Mars and try to fix it up as an escape plan, to ensure humans don't become extinct.

off topic

[Jingthing]

Eventually, humans are going to have to colonize another planet if they are to survive indefinitely. Science knows earth won't last forever as a survivable place for us to live. However, we aren't nearly advanced enough to do that yet. The way things are going, it is highly doubtful we will ever make it to the point where the colonies are meaningful.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Jingthing

[yabaaaa]

Eventually, humans are going to have to colonize another planet if they are to survive indefinitely. Science knows earth won't last forever as a survivable place for us to live. However, we aren't nearly advanced enough to do that yet. The way things are going, it is highly doubtful we will ever make it to the point where the colonies are meaningful.

But surely all the God believers will just say that he/she /it will save them?

Speices do die out we are no different we will be gone one day something better or different will succeed us or maybe even nothing and all life will be gone just another small blip in the eternity of time. We are probably the 1 year in every trillion that had life in it the rest an empty void.

Now doesnt that make global warming irrelevant.

[Deke]

In my, not so expert, opinion human activity does have an impact but this is slight in comparison to the normal cyclic climatic changes.

[pjclark1]

AGW = TAX and CONTROL

Thankfully more and more people are staring to see this.

Think logically, my man. It could be that and ALSO real!

There is no evidence to suggest climate change is either

1) bad

2) caused by human activity

3) significant

It might be real, but it might be beneficial.

because

1) we wouldn't like an ice age

2) increased CO2 causes increase crop yields

So why destroy the basis of our current civilization 'just in case'?

[MiG16]

I dont have enough knowledge to comment either way

but just cos I see so much in the media about global warming, every now and then when I see a case presented to the contrary, it catches my attention

here is one where a few sources have been compiled into a presentation to suggest global cooling (I think...?)

http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091124.pdf

by the way - permission has been granted by owner of blog to share his link

[Jonathanpattaya]

I am unconvinced either way but tend to be a little skepical about the severity of human activity on climate change.

During the seventies and eighties the hole in the ozone layer was the hot topic, if you'll pardon the pun.

That turned out to be a load of poppycock.

[colinscarr]

Global warming is for real (IMHO). However, as various attempts to rein in CO2 production have been less than wildly successful (watch what's happening at Copenhagen this week), I'd suggest we'd do better to try and modify our lifestyle in different ways. For instance, we could accept that low lying coastal areas may well disappear under the sea in a hundred years or less. So stop developing these areas and concentrate on higher ground.

What happens when (if?) the Antarctic Ice cover all melts? Perhaps we'll find an almost untouched continent with huge supplies of mineral wealth. Maybe it will also be usable as farmland to grow crops.

So while I think climate change is happening, I'm not convinced the long term effects will all be bad, though the transition phase when things are changing, will be difficult, to put it mildly.

[xylophone]

I have attached a document which deals with this point very well, on two fronts. The first one being that the recent leak of information regarding the statistics underpinning the case for global warming appear to be very selective, that is, anything which suggested otherwise was not inclluded in the study. In one particular case, the studying of tree rings, which assist with our understanding of global warming, all of the results which ran counter to the global warming argument were discarded and only one treee was included as the main reference to support the argument. Shonky science indeed.

The earth has warmed and cooled naturally over centuries, and at times when there were very few human beings capable of affecting any change in climate, and this latest phase is no different.

The second part of the document shows a graph which clearly outlines that at this present moment in time we are at a very cool period in the ever-changing climate cycle of the earth.

By all means take care with what we do, however this alarmist claptrap serves no one any good, apart from those people earning a living from the huge investment in it.

Global_Warming.doc

[ronz28]

There is evidence of glaciers melting in several locations Chile, Greenland, US, etc. So is man causing it or is it due to the earth's orbit. I have heard both theories and believe their is substance to both arguments. In any case, the oceans will rise and areas at sea level or below with subsidence and rising ocean levels such as New Orleans area, parts of Bangkok, Norway, Houston area, Shainghi, etc. might well be under water. Cities need to plan now for this. New Orleans is so low they ought to stop all new building there as there is probably no cost effective way to save it. I would rather rent than buy real estate in any of those places because there is so much disinformation out there that I am not sure if the land will be under water or not. Perhaps some changes will be sudden enough to make everyone a believer.

[Jingthing]

Yes many places could engineer solutions to minimize and live with the flooding, like the Dutch do, but that takes a lot of money, and most of the world including Thailand doesn't have that kind of money.

[yabaaaa]

And we could all be hit by a F*****G great meteor at any second, shall we make plans for that too?

JIng did you actually read any of the stuff i put up for you or are you TOTALLY blinded by what you see? Pacific islands going under etc????

[xen]

Global Warming = big business for its advocates (heaps of dosh to be earned)

I don't know if that in-itself is bad.

Entrepreneurs that will see a business opportunity just like those who are mining oil and coal saw a business opportunity many years ago and it is only natural that these businesses are protecting their interests by throwing doubt on their part in climate change.

Incidentally, how much will a block of land on Siam Country Club Beach be worth in 50 years?

[Gerontion]

I am unconvinced either way but tend to be a little skepical about the severity of human activity on climate change.

During the seventies and eighties the hole in the ozone layer was the hot topic, if you'll pardon the pun.

That turned out to be a load of poppycock.

The problem with discussion on forums about climate change - and quite a number of other topics too - is that for some reason everyone thinks their opinion counts, which is why you get people producing rubbish like this. There's not necessarily anything wrong with not being that informed on these matters but there's definitely something wrong with talking about serious topics when you clearly don't know what the hel_l you're on about. The ozone hole was real. And it still is. It's greatest extent was recorded in 2006. The reason you don't hear anything about it is partly because it's old news...and hence not news and also because the Montreal Protocol was very successful in phasing out CFCs and HCFCs. You can find details and nice colourful pictures at http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Of course the world is warming, of course humans are causing it, and of course, left unchecked, this will have disastrous results. If you don't believe this then - in light of the Oreskes or STATS studies, amongst others - you have to believe either (i) 1000s of scientists have independently made millions of mistakes all of which tend to confirm each other and which despite being subjected to probably greater scrutiny than any other scientific theory is history, pretty much nobody other than a handful of blogs - and the giants intellects of Fox News - has noticed or (ii) there is a global conspiracy which has run for decades, involved coordinating the falsification of millions of data points, and - despite their wildly competing interests - thousands of scientists, hundreds of journals, corporations, NGOs, media organisations and pretty much every government of the world. And every - yes, every - scientific body or organisation of international standing. Dan Brown would be embarrassed by something like that but it is logically possible. However, to believe either of these you would need some pretty astonishing evidence. So where is it? It's just not there. The CRU emails? Don't be ridiculous. Go ahead and believe it's all a mistake or it's all a con but if you do, you're making a wildly unreasonable choice and you rule yourself out of all further adult conversation.

[mauGR1]

And we could all be hit by a F*****G great meteor at any second, shall we make plans for that too?

JIng did you actually read any of the stuff i put up for you or are you TOTALLY blinded by what you see? Pacific islands going under etc????

And something like that must have happened countless times in this Planet history,just think about a Pole Shift.

Probably very few people could survive,and they would have to start again from nothing,like hunter-gatherers living in Europe 10000 years ago

I voted"i don't care",which is not really true.

In fact i care,and i have two sons too.i try to limit my negative impact on the environment as much as possible,and imho everybody should respect the fragile environment of our big Mother which is Earth.

But the shifts in temperatures are said to have occurred for eras w/out human intervention,so it's difficult to say who is right or who is wrong,as it seems even the most eminent scientists have a thousand colliding theories.

It's easy to be convinced that there is some big business going on,as usual,but let it come if it can make life conditions better.

Imho the Big Problem is over population,and you cannot blame the poor peasant of India or Mexico if he wants to have a car,board a plane for holidays,and have a confortable job in the air-con office..and a computer and a iphone.

If every person of which we call the third-world poor masses would consume the same amount of electricity of an average guy in America or EU,then,there would be a issue.

I heard that Mr. Al Gore,who is working hard for a better environment,has a electricity monthly consumption comparable to hundreds of poor peasants in India.

The most funny theory i heard so far is that RICE cultivation is awfully bad for the environment

Go Figure!

[Gerontion]

But the shifts in temperatures are said to have occurred for eras w/out human intervention,

If what explains past changes in temperature can't explain the current changes in temperature, then that doesn't matter. And it turns out that the causes of past warming can't explain the current warming whereas the fact that we're pumping vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can.

it seems even the most eminent scientists have a thousand colliding theories

It might seem that that's the case but that view doesn't accurately reflect reality. You'll find only a handful climatologists - Lindzen and Singer, for example - who think that anthropogenic climate change isn't real. There has been a concerted effort by the fossil fuel industry to create the impression that the science is undecided and they've been very successful in this but this but if you look at the studies I mentioned - the Oreskes study of published papers or the STATS survey of opinions of climate scientists are two important ones but there are more - you'll find that the overwhelming majority are firmly behind theories of anthropogenic climate change.

the Big Problem is over population

Population growth is clearly a problem but the areas with the fastest growing populations are also the areas with the lowest emissions of CO2. Climate change is really a problem which is being caused by the wealthy but suffered by the poor.

The most funny theory i heard so far is that RICE cultivation is awfully bad for the environment

It's true, unfortunately. Flooding paddy for rice cultivation produces a lot of methane, which has a far stronger greenhouse effect than CO2.